Differences in Outcome and Comparison of Stress and Immune Status in Patients with Recurrent Common Bile Duct Stones after Biliary Tract Surgery Choosing Three Procedures (ERCP, OCBDE, and LCBDE) for Treatment

Meta-analysis of the timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy plays an important role in the treatment of cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis; however, there is no unified standard for the interval of ERCP before laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We conducted a literature search, data extraction and meta-analysis on this topic. Twelve articles with 1142 patients were included, including 567 patients in the E-laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed within 72 h after ERCP) and 575 patients in the D-laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed 72 h after ERCP). The results showed that: compared with the D-laparoscopic cholecystectomy group, the duration of cholecystectomy was shorter in the E-laparoscopic cholecystectomy group [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -16.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-22.27 to -10.08), P  < 0.00001], and the postoperative hospitalization was shorter [WMD = -1.24, 95% CI (-1.98 to -0.50), P  < 0.0001]. There were fewer complications [odds ratio (OR) = 0.25, 95% CI (0.39-0.62), P  < 0.0001], lower conversion rate [OR = 0.39, 95% CI (0.21-0.71), P  = 0.002], lower high sensitivity C-reactive protein at 3 days after surgery [WMD = -8.76, 95% CI (-12.59 to -4.93), P  < 0.00001], and fewer neutrophils in the ampulla of gallbladder specimen [WMD = -4.21, 95% CI (-4.55 to -3.88), P < 0.00001]. Therefore, in the treatment of cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis by laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 72 h after ERCP, the degree of inflammation before and after surgery is less, the operation time and hospital stay are shortened, the postoperative complications and the conversion rate are reduced, which is a more appropriate time for surgery.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Laparoscopic Holmium laser Lithotripsy and Laparoscopic Bile Duct Exploration for Bile Duct Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic holmium laser lithotripsy (LHLL) has been used to treat bile duct stones with unclear outcomes. A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the LHLL and laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE) efficacy and safety in treating bile duct stones.

METHODS

The correlational studies were searched databases, such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP, to identify eligible studies from inception to July 2022. The dichotomous and continuous outcomes were evaluated using odds ratio (OR), risk difference (RD) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Stata 15.0 and Review Manager 5.3 software helped in data analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies with 1,890 patients, primarily from China, were included. The results indicated that operation time (WMD = - 26.94; 95% CI:(- 34.30, - 19.58); P < 0.00001), estimated blood loss (WMD = - 17.97; 95% CI: (- 22.94, - 13.00); P = 0.002), rate of residual stone (OR = 0.15, 95%CI: (0.10, 0.23); P < 0.00001), length of hospital stay (WMD = - 2.88; 95% CI:(- 3.80, - 1.96); P < 0.00001) and time to bowel function recovery (WMD = - 0.59; 95% CI: (- 0.76, - 0.41); P < 0.00001) had statistically significant differences between the two groups. In postoperative complications, biliary leakage (RD = -0.03; 95% CI: (- 0.05, -0.00); P = 0.02), infection (RD = - 0.06; 95% CI: (- 0.09,- 0.03); P < 0.00001) and Hepatic injury (RD = - 0.06; 95% CI: (- 0.11, - 0.01); P = 0.02) revealed statistically significant differences. However, no significant differences were observed in biliary damage (RD = - 0.03; 95% CI: (- 0.06, 0.00); P = 0.06) and hemobilia (RD = - 0.03; 95% CI: (- 0.06, 0.00); P = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

The current meta-analysis indicated that LHLL could be more effective and safer than LBDC. However, these results should be confirmed with a larger sample size and rigorously designed randomized controlled trials.

Retracted: Differences in Outcome and Comparison of Stress and Immune Status in Patients with Recurrent Common Bile Duct Stones after Biliary Tract Surgery Choosing Three Procedures (ERCP, OCBDE, and LCBDE) for Treatment

[This retracts the article DOI: 10.1155/2022/9197990.].

Primary closure combined with C-tube drainage through cystic duct after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is safe and feasible for patients

OBJECTIVE

Biliary duct management is of great significance after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) in the treatment of cholecystolithiasis accompanied with common bile duct (CBD) stones. This study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of primary closure with C-tube drainage through cystic duct after LC + LCBDE.

METHODS

Through a retrospective study, 290 patients who underwent LC + LCBDE in our hospital from January 2019 to April 2022 were enrolled and divided into 2 groups. 143 patients underwent primary closure with C-tube drainage through cystic duct (C-tube group) and the other 147 patients underwent traditional T-tube drainage (T-tube group). Personal information, perioperative examinations, surgical results, and follow-up results were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the average age, gender, the mean of CBD diameters and the rate of comorbidities (acute cholecystitis, obstructive jaundice, acute pancreatitis and acute cholangitis) between the two groups (P > 0.05). Hospital stay, postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the C-tube group than T-tube group (P < 0.05). In addition, the average time of placing and removal the drainage tubes was significantly less than those of the T-tube group (P < 0.05). This study also showed significant differences in the incidence of postoperative abdominal infection and soft tissue infection in the two groups (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the incidence of postoperative complications including cholangitis, bile duct stenosis, mortality in two groups. There were also no significant differences between the two groups of the recurrence of CBD stones, reoperation and readmition in 30 days during the median follow-up of 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with T tube drainage, patients with C-tube drainage after LC + LCBDE with primary closure of cystic duct recovered faster and had fewer complications. C-tube drainage is a safe and feasible treatment option for patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis.